The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Analysis NotchFilter 1591hz.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JonathonReinhart (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Screenshot seems to be of an old version of NI Multisim, which is not free software. Only used on talk page. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, mislabelled non-free file that has no use in the mainspace. Salavat (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:BeerlaoDark.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Slammer111 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Labels seem to be above the threshold of originality. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ansett route map.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bauple58 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Appears to be a scan of a pamphlet cover. Permission from publisher is needed unless it can be shown that it is in public domain. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australian copyright law had a 50 year term (pma or from publication in the case of anonymous works) at the URAA restoration date in 1996. So the route map would have to have been published anonymously before 1946 to escape restoration. Felix QW (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:HopperAutomat.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Volatile (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned, superseded by File:Automat-edward-hopper-1927.jpg on Commons. ✗plicit 02:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to Commons file. Felix QW (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Hekerui (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Unclear copyright status/doesn't appear to be free in the US. No prejudice to restoration if someone can create a valid fair use claim for the file -FASTILY 05:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deng BaoShan 1968.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Toweli (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file is missing a US licensing template, and the only possibility I could imagine for this to be PD in the US is for the image to have been published before 1946, which would make it PD in China at the URAA restoration date. The subject would have been 52 in 1946 and died in 1968. Felix QW (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: File was already reduced, closing as moot -FASTILY 05:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keenan Anderson portrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CT55555 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A 1,280 × 1,600 pixels image is not fair use. Criteria 3b of the NFCC says this should be low resolution. Secondly, there's the assumption that "no opportunity to get a photo exists" - but there is still a decent chance that a free image does exist, but hasn't been located (or uploaded) yet. I'm unsure if anyone has contacted the deceased's estate to try and get a free image? There's also the issue that "No viable commercial opportunity seems likely.", despite the fact that images of this person are currently in high demand due to ongoing news coverage. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 17:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I uploaded this. I uploaded three similar images actually, and this is a new thing that I've done, so I make no claim of expertise. I used similar justifications for all three, so now would be a good time to learn if I'm doing something wrong. The others are [[1]] and [[2]]. In my experience of upload photos, I think 100% of the time User:DatBot comes along and resizes it and uploads a lower resolution one, so I did not pause to consider the resolution .

Regarding is a free images currently exists, I searched Google using the filter for licenses and Commons, which seems like a the appropriate way to determine if an image exists. I found none.

Reaching out to the estate of a man who was recently killed in such extreme circumstances to ask for a photo like a very high bar to set me, and I would not be so bold as to contact a grieving family, that idea that volunteer editors might each individually feel a responsibility to ask seems unlikely, can any of us really imagine that dozens of editors might all ask the same question of the recently bereaved? I consider this a strange indicator of the photo's suitability. The photo I shared is all over the internet already, and on Instagram, so I cannot see that I am reducing any commercial opportunity, I find it unlikely that his family will turn this into a money making moment and if they did so, I consider it even more unlikely that an image widely shared on news and social media would (a) have commercial value and (b) that value would be reduced by being used here.

But everything I have said is based on my basic understanding of things, I am no expert here, this is my first time at files for discussion, so if I'm transgressing, please point me in the right direction, I have no desire to create problems. CT55555(talk) 17:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update, the bots are doing their things (diff) and the file will inevitably be reduced in the very short term future. I suggest anyone worried about the file size pause for 24 hours at which point I think it will be replaced automatically by the bots. CT55555(talk) 19:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further update, bots have reduced to 282 × 353 pixels. Bots will delete original image on 21st Jan. CT55555(talk) 00:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leatherface.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Paleface Jack (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I uploaded this file by accident when I was not finished naming it. I uploaded better version of file with a more appropriate name Paleface Jack (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G7, as the author has requested deletion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. No strong evidence this is PD , and likely copyrighted in Iraq. Whpq (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:My Ummah Dawn is Looming, the anthem of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant.mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RowanJ LP (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I don't buy the notion that all anthems of unofficial countries are in the public domain by virtue of the country lacking recognition; a creative song dedicated as an anthem of the Principality of Sealand first published in the United Kingdom would be copyrighted despite the fact that Sealand lacks recognition. For that reason, we need to consider if this is actually copyrighted in the United States (or we need to find a free license from ISIS... which we're not going to find).

To determine U.S. copyright status is a bit complicated. Syria is a party to the Berne Convention, but c:COM:Iraq is not. If this sound recording was first published in Iraq and not republished in Syria (or any other Berne country) within 30 days, then it would be PD in the USA as the USA does not recognize Iraqi copyrights. Otherwise, it would probably be copyrighted under U.S. law. due to it being copyrighted in Syria (even though ISIS is never going to be able to legally enforce it because... well... ISIS is illegal).

I'm bringing this here for discussion, because I'm not sure what we should do here. There's absolutely no way that ISIS will be able to enforce its copyright in the United States so long as it remains a terrorist group that lacks recognition as a sovereign state, but it (or some chap who made the song) might well still own the copyright under U.S. law if this was published in Syria. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new here, only saw this because a file I uploaded is up for discussion above, so very much on a learning curve, so forgive me if this is a silly question. Do you think that maybe should be deleted because you think the Islamic State might litigate against Wikipedia? Is that the risk that we need to try to avoid? CT55555(talk) 21:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. In fact there's no active risk that ISIS will be able to litigate against Wikipedia successfully (I think I stated this quite clearly when I said [t]here's absolutely no way that ISIS will be able to enforce its copyright in the United States so long as it remains a terrorist group that lacks recognition as a sovereign state). But WP:NFCC doesn't appear to care, which is why this is here for discussion and why I didn't come out swinging for deletion off the bat. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, sorry for misunderstanding. So we should be discussing how to apply a policy that doesn't work well for this unusual scenario? I think I've understood now. And I'm very new to this part of wikipedia and I'll maybe just watch how this plays out. CT55555(talk) 22:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well since it's a terrorist organization, and a unofficial country, all it's items including cover art, audio, videos, etc. Falls under common property, but the person who created this audio is dead, supposedly at least, so including that, it's pretty easy to understand how this is in public domain/common property. RowanJ LP (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it's most likely that this audio was recorded in Iraq, since this audio was made in 2013, before the Islamic State's expansion into Syria ever began. RowanJ LP (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, if this has indeed been recorded and published in Iraq, then there is no issue with US copyrights since Iraq is not party to international copyright agreements.

However, our general practice is to respect Iraqi copyrights and demand that files from Iraq are PD in that country, which they presumably are not. Personally, I would follow this guidance and require the anthem to treated as non-free media. Felix QW (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've already uploaded it to be on the English Wikipedia only, so it was uploaded as non-free, so the audio file is being treated as non-free media. RowanJ LP (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was uploaded as public domain. Are you referring to another country? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's in public domain, but I uploaded it as a non-free file, meaning it can be only used in the English Wikipedia. RowanJ LP (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that ((PD-USonly)) is treated as a public domain file for purposes of WP:NFCC, rather than a non-free file, no? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, it was uploaded in public domain on the English Wikipedia. RowanJ LP (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisa Marie Presley Storm & Grace Deluxe.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Livelikemusic (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Virtually identical to the standard cover, fails fair use in WP:NFCC, as the differences can be easily communicated in text. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.